[210] προήκατο.
[211] That is to say, before Chaos was organized and the Aeons brought into existence.
[212] A plain reference to the Ectroma or Sophia Without.
[213] ἰδίᾳ τῶν γραμμάτων γραφέντων (Miller). The Codex has διὰ for ἰδίᾳ and γραφέντος for γραφέντων. Cruice bungles the passage and Macmahon omits it. It is not found in Irenæus.
[214] e. g. the δ can be written δ, ε, λ, τ, α.
[215] ὑπόστασις.
[216] A pun on the name of the Supreme Father, Bythos or the Deep.
[217] φιλοπονία and ματαιοπονία.
[218] Or Truth.
[219] i. e. Man.
[220] It would seem from this that Marcus, following perhaps in this the Anatolic School of Valentinus, made Sige not the spouse of Bythos but merely another name for Aletheia.
[221] τῆς διανοίας νόημα. As if he were trying to avoid writing the word Nous.
[222] Hippolytus or Marcus here plays upon the identity of the ἐπίσημον or digamma, the name of the sixth letter in the Greek alphabet, which was used for numeration only, and the adjective ἐπίσημον, “illustrious.”
[223] The word in brackets supplied from Irenæus.
[224] ὧν τὰ μεγέθη. The allusion seems to be again to Matt. xviii. 10. The angels might well be considered on the Valentinian theory the greater parts or counterparts of their terrestrial spouses. In Epiphanius τὸ Μέγεθος seems to be used for the Supreme Being. Cf. Panar. Haer., XXXI, p. 314, Oehl. The passage is said to be suspect.
[225] One of the later documents of the Pistis Sophia speaks repeatedly of certain τριδυναμεις or τριδυναμοι (both spellings are used) which seem to hold a very exalted rank in the scale of beings, alike in the spiritual and the material parts of the universe.
[226] φ, χ, θ, η, κ, τ, β, γ, δ.
[227] λ, μ, ν, ρ, ς, ζ, ξ, ψ.
[228] τὰ φωνήεντα.
[229] α, ε, η, ι, ο, υ, ω.
[230] μορφὴν αὐτοῖς περιεποίησεν, “has put shape round them.”
[231] Reading Ἐπειδὴ with Irenæus instead of the Ἐπὶ δὲ of Hippolytus.
[232] So that the “ineffable” name of Christ consisted of 30 letters. So Epiphanius, Haer., XXXIV, p. 448, Oehl. No guess hitherto made as to its transliteration into Greek letters seems entirely satisfactory; but Harvey (Iren., I, p. 146, nn. 1, 2), shows that χὶ, ρὼ, εἴψιλον (for which spelling Nigidius Figulus and Aulus Gellius are quoted), ἰῶτα, σῖγμα, ταῦ, οὐ (for ὀμικρόν), and, again, σῖγμα, can be made to count 30.
[233] The text has ἀναλογίας, for which Miller rightly restores οἰκονομίας from Irenæus. Cf. p. 318 Cr. infra.
[234] πεφηνέναι. Irenæus has πεφυκέναι, “grew.”
[235] See the Transfiguration according to Matt. xvii. and Mark ix.
[236] Or “the Episemon.”
[237] π = 80, ε 5, ρ 100, ι 10, σ 200, τ 300, ε 5, ρ 100, α 1 = 801. So Α 1 + Ω 800 = 801.
[238] Ἡ παρασκευή. “The Preparation” (for the Passover) i. e. Friday.
[239] τὸν τῶν ἕξ ἀριθμὸν, δύναμιν ποιήσεως κτλ. So Irenæus’ Latin translation, “Scientem eum numerum qui est sex virtutem fabricationis et regenerationem habentem.”
[240] 6 + 24 = 30.
[241] τῆς αὐτοβουλήτου βουλῆς ... ὁ καρπός, “the Fruit of the self-counselled Council,” Irenæus.
[242] μιμήσει τὴς Ἑβδομάδος δυνάμεως ἐψύχωσε κόσμον, “imparted in imitation of the seven powers animation to this world,” (Macmahon); but see Irenæus in loc. cit.
[243] As before, this probably means “Desire.”
[244] This seems the first time we meet with the idea of “The Column of Praises” of the Manichæans which mounting from the earth and bearing with it the prayers and praises of mankind plays with them a considerable part in the redemption of Light from Matter.
[245] Ps. viii. 2.
[246] Ps. xix. 1.
[247] Irenæus puts what follows into the mouth of “the all-wise Sige.” A section dealing with the name of Aletheia is omitted by Hippolytus.
[248] Or perhaps “Unity in Solitude.”
[249] i. e. “Ineffable.”
[250] Four, unless we spell the word as he apparently does, Σειγή.
[251] In the section omitted (see n. 2 supra) the “body of Aletheia” is said to be δωδεκάμελος or “of 12 members,” which points to some different notation.
[252] Cf. Rev. xix. 11-13.
[253] As Harvey (Iren., I, p. 145, n. 3) points out, this forced isopsephism is only reached by spelling Eta ηι and the Iota in Χριστός εἶ. He quotes Aulus Gellius in support.
[254] The words in brackets ( ) are not in Irenæus and are probably the addition of some commentator.
[255] The Codex has χρι.
[256] π = 80, ε = 5, ρ = 100, ι = 10, σ = 200, τ = 300, ε = 5, ρ = 100, α = 1: total 801. It is evident, therefore that Marcus considered Christ and the Holy Spirit to be the same Person.
[257] ἄρῥητον γένεσιν, “unspoken derivation”?
[258] δεκαοκτώ, an unusual word, unknown to classical Greek.
[259] Words in square brackets [ ] supplied from Irenæus.
[260] δημιουργία. Here, as elsewhere, the word implies construction from previously existing matter.
[261] τὸν τόπον ἀναπεπληρωκέναι.
[262] Cf. Luke i. 35.
[263] κατ’ οἰκονομίαν. This seems here the meaning of the word. See Döllinger, First Age of Christianity, Eng. ed., p. 170, n. 2, Hatch; Influence of Greek Ideas upon the Christian Church, p. 131; Tollinton, Clement of Alexandria, II, p. 13, and n. 1, for other meanings.
[264] This seems unintelligible unless we suppose the “body of Aletheia,” said above to be the number 12, to be the heaven known as “the Place of Truth.” Cf. Pistis Sophia, p. 128, Copt.
[265] The same expression is used in the Pistis Sophia where Jesus “sows” a power of light in Elizabeth the mother of John the Baptist. Cf. p. 12, Copt.
[266] Or “Arrangement.” Marcus, perhaps here imitating Valentinus, postulates several Saviours, one of whom restores order in the arrangement of the Aeons before coming to this earth.
[267] In Irenæus there follows here a lengthy “refutation” of Marcus’ doctrines and a poem condemning him and his teaching which some think to be the work of Pothinus, Irenæus’ martyred predecessor at Lyons.
[268] With this sentence, Hippolytus again picks up his quotations from Irenæus.
[269] πάθος, “a passion” or “The Passion”?
[270] πεπλανῆσθαι.
[271] Irenæus’ Latin version here makes better sense:—Similiter et a duodecade abscedentum unam virtutem perisse divinant et hanc esse mulierem quae perdiderit drachmam, et accenderit lucernam, et invenerit eam.
[272] α = 1, μ 40, η 8, ν 50, total 99. Writers of the sub-Apostolic age seem to have laid much stress on the miraculous power of the word Amen when uttered in unison. Cf. the Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians (Cureton’s translation), p. 15, as to the “mysteries of the shout.”
[273] Thus α = 1, β 2, γ 3, δ 4, ε 5, ζ 7, η 8 = 30.
[274] εἰς ὁλόκληρον. Because the decad is a “perfect” number.
[275] ἐπισυμπλέκοντες καὶ δεκαπλασιάσαντες.
[276] τῆς ἄνω οἰκονομίας. The word can here mean nothing else.
[277] α = 1, β 2, γ 3, δ 4, ε 5, ζ 7, η 8, θ 9, ι 10, κ 20, λ 30 = 99.
[278] Because the Episemon has no τόπος.
[279] στοιχεῖον here used for “character.”
[280] ΛΛ = M.
[281] ὑστέρημα; the usual Gnostic name for the Void.
[282] This section passes over Irenæus’ refutation of the last, and forms the beginning of the Xth Chap. (p. 164, H.).
[283] There must be some mistake here, as the Sun and Moon were included among the seven planetary heavens.
[284] Not of course the Egyptian god, but the Gnostic “Limit” or Cross. The passage is not very clear.
[285] Irenæus has φαεινῆς, “radiant,” and the text κενῆς, “empty”; Irenæus’ Latin version “non apparentes” or invisible. Probably μεγάλης was the original word.
[286] κατὰ κάθετον. Macmahon thinks this refers to the position of the sun, which is unnecessary.
[287] Irenæus omits the words “of the Ogdoad.”
[288] κατάλυσιν λαβεῖν, “receive dissolution.”
[289] καινότερα. The text has κενώτερα, “more inane.”
[290] περιεργίας, “bye-work.”
[291] Κολάρβασος. The name which is repeated by Tertullian, Philaster and Theodoret can be traced back to the single passage in Irenæus, where it appears in connection with the name Σιγή as “the Sige of Colarbasus.” A German commentator long since suggested that it was not the name of a brother heretic or follower of Marcus, but a corruption of the words קל־ארבע Qol-Arba, or the “Voice of the Four,” and this seems now generally accepted. As most if not all of Marcus’ pretended revelations are said to have been dictated to him by an apparition of the Supreme Tetrad, he may well have called the book in which they were written and which seems to have been known to Irenæus, by some such name.
[292] It seems needless to point out that the whole of these chapters dealing with the real or supposed successors of Valentinus is taken direct from Irenæus, and that they have no relation to any other author.